Cameron Frame BA3 Technologies Study

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C CAMERON FRAME

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C CAMERON FRAME CONTENTS WEEK 1 - APPRAISALS

WEEK 2 - ANALYSIS

WEEK 3 - PRESENTATION

Appraisals - Climate

3

Appraisals - Site

4

Appraisals - Systems

5

Appraisals - Strategies

6

Integrative Design Proposal

7

Benchmark Analysis

8

Iterative Testing - Glazing Efficiency

9

Iterative Testing - Glazing Proportion

10

Iterative Testing - Glazing Distribution

11

Iterative Testing - Atrium

12

Integrative Environmental Design

13

Personal Position + Integrative Proposition

14

Iterative Detail Development

15-17

Integrative Design Summary

18

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 1 1.1.1 APPRAISALS - CLIMATE

ISOMETRIC ON SITE

CLIMATE CHARTS

CLIMATE: MOSCOW, RUSSIA

Initial design suggestion based off Russia is well known for being a harsh environment with wide seasonal chang- climate appraisals with slight consides. In the summer the city can experience high temperatures and high air pres- eration for site specific conditions.

Roof Terrace to capitalise on unobstructed views over the city.

South facing to maximise light.

sure. However in the winter temperatures drop far below freezing and often do not climb above this point. Due to the latitude of this location, sun angles can be very low and penetrate light deep into buildings. Long dark nights come with this too.

Winds and rain are relatively consistent in direction and occurrance throughout the year. Overall this makes for a harsh environment with tricky building conditions.

WIND

Russia is well known for its cold winters and harsh climate, this section sets out to quantify the conditions and produce findings that will inform my design.

Wind in Moscow is consistently from a South-Westerly direction, with high force behind it. Of course this may change as my site may prevent this direction of wind, however is does suggest that regardless of my site the wind is likely to be coming from the same direction for a majority of the time.

KEY CLIMATE DESIGN DRIVERS

Snow Loads: Moscow is very cold in the winter and sees significant snow fall nearly every year. This influences my design becasue the building’s structure will have to be able to withstand large live loads from above. However a steel frame with metal composite slab should be able to handle this confortably, which suggests I shall try to enbrace the snow and celebrate it through incorporating it into my proposed architectural experience.

Overall, this climate poses its challenges for building a steel framed building with a curtain wall glazing system. However many of these conditions are possible to overcome or to celebrate architecturally.

REAR ISOMATRIC VIEW

Core of building located on North party wall to maximise light entering building and minimise obstruction along south side of building.

Summer vs Winter: There are few cities in the World where the temperatures vary as much as Moscow’s. This poses a challenge for my building; to manage the climate to create a usable, enjoyable work space that where possible will use the environment to its benefit. For example using thermal mass in the winter to heat the spaces via solar gain. This is with the ambition of reducing the building’s energy consumption and impact on the environment.

Moscow vs Munich: in Munich there is less need to consider thermal mass or snow loads as the climate is unlikely to need these often, however building in Munich does require more consideration for rain and warm weather conditions.

Moscow vs Bangalore: Two very different climates. Bangalore is very hot, which asks the building to cool its users down often, something buildings in Moscow are unlikely to need. Humidity is high in Bangalore meaning the buildings need to find a way to prevent the moisture damaging the building, but buildings in Moscow do not face this issue. The rainy season in Bangalore means the building would need a highly efficient drainage system to deal with the volumes of water, however Moscow does not experience this.

Moscow vs Riyadh: Being a desert climate there is no need for drainage or snow loads in Riyadh, unlike Moscow. Both these climates experience big changes in temperature, often making their buildings very versatile.

Precipitation is relatively low throughout the year and consistently so. The level of precimitation does not change much across the year and is not influenced by seasons. However in the winter this precipitation comes in the form of snow.

PRECIPITATION (mm)

Daylight Hours: Due to the latitude of Moscow in the Northern Hemisphere, the hours of daylight vary heavily from winter to summer. As analysed already, in the summer there is u to 17 hours of daylight, whereas in the winter there is as little as 7 hours.

This creates dark buildings which in an office setting are uncomfortable. I shall aim to over come this problem naturally if possible, before having to turn to artificial solutions otherwise.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Daylight hours change across the year due to Moscow’s latitude, which sits high into the northern hemisphere.

Maximum daylight can reach 17.5 hours per day in June, and minimum of 7 hours per day in December.

DAYLIGHT (hours)

Wind: As analysed through the wind rose on this page, the currents seen through moscow are regular and of average speed. However they are heavily averaged from a South-Westerly direction, which over time shall place a strain on the building. There will also be significant positive and negative air pressures around the building from this wind. I shall consider this when designing my building and aim to manage these parameters.

Sun Angles: As mentioned above, Moscow sits on a latitude that creates a difference in day length of 10 hours between summer and winter. This is casued by the changing sun angle. Sun angles will have a negative impact in the winter, when the light can penetrate the building and create uncomfortable environments or impeed on productivity. However, the sun could be used to the buildings benefit in the summer e.g. Solar PV.

Temperature changes dramatically through the year in Moscow, as shown in the graph here. Average low temperatures drop to -10 degrees in winter months, and high temperatures, averaging up to 24 degrees, for several weeks each summer.

TEMPERATURE (‘c)

Vertical Louvres on North West facade because this side will see low sun angles. Vertical louvres combat low sun angles better than horizontal louvres.

Cantelever over the North West facade. This creates a threshold for entrances, and offers possibilities to project into the street for better views and light access.

Horizontal louvres on South facade as this side of the building will be exposed to higher sun angles, where horizontal louvres operate better than vertical elements.

WIND PATH

SOLAR PATH Sun path laid over the site plan. This shows the angles that the sun will reach throughout the year in Moscow.

As can be seen, the sun reaches very far round the site, featuring high sun angles in the middle of the day. The site has an exposed face to the South, this will be key in my development.

SOLAR ALTITUDE As mentioned above in my data analysis the wind in Moscow is heavily from a South-Westerly direction. This will be seen vividly in the context of my site, as the two main roads follow a South-Westerly trajectory. Wind will run down the two roads, however there will be minimal impact on my building as an infill site.

Sun angles will be a key peice of analysis for this project as an infill site. The highest midday sun angle in Moscow is 58 degrees, and the lowest is 13 degrees. This allows the possibility of courtyards in my building to maximise light. The surrounding buildings are also of a similar height so light is not blocked unfairly.

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 1 1.1.2 APPRAISALS - SITE SITE: INFILL CONDITION

This site is situated between two quiet roads with an exposed face to the SouthEast and North-West. This offers light to enter from the south, but with significant shadows at points through the day. Due to the two roads there are access opportunities from multiple locations. This page shall show an analysis of these key creative drivers that are put in place by the site. Analysis shall be in the form of plan, section, and perspective sketches. A comparison to other climates is also given here.

KEY SITE DESIGN DRIVERS

PARTY WALLS

SOUTH FACING SUNLIGHT

ACCESS

SHADOWING

NOISE

This site is situated between two existing buildings, both of a similar height to the proposal. These will impact on my scheme when orientating my building, as it limits the site to just two open facades. It aslo impacts on the site by raising layout issues such as the location of the core, to maximisethe already limited daylight on site. By having two open sides access routes are initially unclear.

As mentioned, this site only has two open facades, one facing North-West, the other facing South-East. This South-East facade offers possiblilities for maximum daylight entering the building. The parameter here is the surface area of the south facade that allows light into the building. This shall be high in order to capitalise on this, however not too high as to lose heat through glazing, which is likely in Moscow.

Because this is an infill site with roads either side, and people approaching the building from both North and South, there are several access opportunities. The wider road shall be used as the main access route, putting the user entrance on the North-West facade. Services will be placed brought in through the rear entrance on the quieter South side. However this may impact on the use of the South facade for light.

The majority of the immediate context is all of roughly six storeys, making shadowing a key consideration. The buildings to the South of my site could obstruct my building from direct sunlight, and the buildings to the North could limit the north light diffusing into the building. Fortuntely for most of the year this will not be an issue faced by my building, however for some time in winter months light may be compromised.

This site Does not experience much noise disruption as the immediate roads are quieter than those aurrounding them. There is a louder road to the North and to the South.

This will impact on my design because it offers opportunities for outdoor spaces that are not disrupted by noise and pollution. This could be in the form of balconies or, as shown in this initial design, a roof terrace.

Party Walls: The location for this building is on an infill site, meaning there are party walls on both sides of the building. This limits the light entering the site, and reduces the number of free facades to two, however it could create opportunities for interesting context contrasts through form or facade treatment e.g. materiality. This parameter is also linked to access by opening up possibilities for entry and exit points.

Shadowing: High buildings and narrow streets in the immediate context create strong shadowing. This could limit the light that reaches the building and makes the lower floors dark, however it could be used to create interesting contrasts between light and dark. Reflective louvre systems could bounce light back into the building. This design driver can also be linked to the light South facade, which is importartant because of the building heights.

Noise: Roads and alleys adjacent to the site are generally quiet, and low in traffic density compared to roads nearby. This is a creative driver because it offers the opportunity to create pleasent outdoor spaces without being disrupted by traffic and pollution. Hence the roof terrace in the initial design. Alternatives include balconies. This driver is created by the narrow streets which also contribute to the shadowing patterns discussed above.

Access: Because the site is an infill, and naturally has a road on either side, both could be seen as an access route. This creates issues with regard to the general arrangement of the building e.g. Front and rear. However this also benefits the proposal by giving natural opportunities for services to be kept separate from users when entering the building. This again links to other design drivers that are created by the two roads either side of the site.

South Facing Sunlight: Moscow receives the majority of its sunlight from the south, which happens to be the open side of this infill site. This can be capitalised upon to create a sense of orientation around the building and maximise light entering the spaces. This wall could become a design feature of the project, and has potential for solar gain. This is inherently linked to the party walls, which cause this side of the site to be the only exposed.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Infill vs Corner: The corner site has to battle with high levels of noise throughout the day from the main road, unlike the infill site. The Infill site also holds better opportunities for roof terraces and South facing elements than the corner site, which faces North.

Infill vs End: The end site is similar to the infill in that there is minimal noise around the site. The infill site does not gain much afternoon light, whereas the end site is fortunate and has a park to the south west, lighting the building well. Because the surrounding buildings are of a similar height to the proposal there is nothing obstructing the site from south facing light on the roof, allowing the possibility of solar PV or roof terraces.

Infill vs Island: The island site is vastly different to the infill site, for example currently there is minimal open space surrounding the infill site, whereas there is open space on all sides of the island site. This leaves the possiblilities of light, structure, geometry, and mass more open than that of the infill site. Possibilities for good architectural expereience are much higher.

PARTY WALLS

NOISE

LIGHT

SHADOWING

ACCESS

SITE

PERSPECTIVE: SOUTH FACING

PERSPECTIVE: NORTH FACING

PERSPECTIVE: NEIGHBOURING TERRACE

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 1 1.2.1 APPRAISALS - SYSTEMS

BUILDING STRUCTURE AXONOMETRIC

EXTERNAL WALL BUILD UP 1:20 Triple glazing with air cavity, 6mm + 4mm + 6mm

SYSTEM: STEEL FRAME + CURTAIN WALL GLAZING

This system will involve a concrete shear core for fire prevention purposes and bracing. The rest of the structure will use a 300mm x 300mm steel frame and cross bracing on all sides. Steel is strong in both tension and compression, meaning it only requires bracing in one direction. Pile foundations are used under all structural columns that reach the ground. Piles were chosen because of the estimated soil conditions for Moscow, and the type of superstructure placed ontop of the foundations.

300mm x 300mm Steel column

KEY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DRIVERS Aesthetics (Exposed steel): This structural system allows for steelwork to be exposed and celebrated as part of the architectural experience. This may have some implications for moving services through the building and may only be possible in certain parts of the structure.

However it could add identity to the building and experience for the user. This can be integrated to all other structural drivers.

Steel ‘C’ section bracket Steel Mullion for secondary structure Hidden glazing frame

18.0m

Uninterrupted Spaces: The structural capabilities of steel allow it to facilitate wide spans. This does not pose any negative implications for the building, however it does offer the opportunity to have open plan office space and uninterrupted spans. This will create an enjoyable environment to work in, and will link to environmental drivers to maximise light entering deep into the floor plan.

Cantelever: Steel frames such as the one shown here allow for opportunities to cantelever. This places strain on the structure, however steel is capable of dealing with the stresses placed by such an over-hang. This will create a threshold and a natural pause before entering the building. This also links to environmental drivers, creating shelter from Moscow’s heavy rain and snow.

Atrium: Because steel can span large distances it can create large solids or large voids. An atrium on the South side of the building will allow light to flood the South side of the building. In the warm summer weather this will open up the opportunity for use of the stack effect to cool the space. Solar gain will be maximised in the winter through this structural device.

Variable Facade Treatment: A steel framed secondary structure and curtain wall system allows for changeable facade panels and treatments. This will allow for panels to be upgraded and swapped out as technology progresses.

This could include potential for solar PV, or metal panels and new louvres. This can link into other devices such as environmental performance and energy generation.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Vertical Aluminium louvre with supporting steel fixing

15.0m

Steel ‘L’ plate to space primary structure from window

15.0m 18.0m STRUCTURAL INTENTION

STRUCTURAL CORE CROSS BRACING PILE FOUNDATIONS

ARCHITECTURAL INTENTION The architectural intention behind the structure shown above is to create a frame that will allow spaces that fit the brief to be met in an exciting aesthetic manner. The grid that has been created allows for large spaces that require few structural columns breaking up the spaces. This frame also accommodates potential for atriums and cantelevers, both of which add quality to the architectural experience.

STRUCTURAL PLAN

To properly partition and divide spaces in an effective manner, the structure is layed out on a 3000mm grid. This allows for 6000mm uninterrupted spans across the main office spaces. The core will be a shear concrete core, for its bracing capabilities and its fire proofing qualities. Steel bracing is found on all other sides of the building, and is an ideal material as it is strong in both tension and compression. 3000mm was used as the grid because of its divisibility for smaller units and standardised pieces inside and outside the building. The cantelever projects slightly over the pavement, as specified in the brief.

STRUCTURAL SECTION (LONG)

The skin of this building will predominantely be made up from curtain wall glazing, broken up with metal panels to add insulation and reduce heat loss. This gives the facade a U-Value of roughly 0.30 W/m2K. The non glazed sections will have better thermal performance than the glazing. Fittings and fixtures in this structure are generally aluminium as they are lightweight and versatile. Structure is generally steel for its strength in both tension and compression.

STRUCTURAL SECTION (SHORT)

NORTH ELEVATION ZONING

Steel Frame vs Concrete Frame There are several main differences between steel and concrete systems, the concrete requires no bracing, opening up more facade oppertunities. However the concrete is heavier and often cannot span as far as the steel frame. Curtain wall glazing, used in the steel construction does not differ too much from the metal panel system and there will be several repeated principals and fixtures in these systems.

Steel Frame vs Masonry + Timber Joists Masonry is vastly different to Steel in most ways. Timber joists used in this system sturggle to span the distances that steel easily acheives. Masonry does not need bracing, however it does create much thicker walls than those of most steel framed buildings. Curtain wall glazing provides very large windows, whereas brick and block can sometimes struggle to create large openings.

Steel Frame vs Timber Frame CLT Some CLT structures can acheive very good span distances that can compete with some steel structures, and a timber rainscreen often has nicer aesthetic qualities than curtain wall glazing systems. Timber also requires cross cracing strategies.

3000mm

3000mm

3000mm

3000mm

WALL BUILD UP

FLOOR BUILD UP

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

WEEK 1 1.2.2 APPRAISALS - STRATEGIES This page shows an initial draft of the ground floor plan and a typical office floor plan in this building. This exercise has enabled a better understanding of the spatial arrangement, which has been informed by five key strategic drivers. This include the core positioning, hierarchy, light, spans, and flexibility of programme. The floor plans shown here have taken into consideration the longer term use and adapability of the spaces. Some consideration has been given to services, through a reflected ceiling plan, however this is just the beginning of the process. From these initial designs some elements of the plans may change as the building is subject to environmental analysis.

KEY STRATEGIC DESIGN DRIVERS Core Location: The location of the core in this building will be the primary driver for strategy. The orientation, site, climate, and programme of the building have all influenced the positioning of the core. By placing it in this location maximum daylight can be acheived, and spaces can be created that promote productivity and enjoyment. Core location also links to light access, and open plan drivers.

Hierarchy: Spaces have been layed out with consideration for the natural hierarchy that is biuld into the desired programme. by analysing the requirements for each space the floor plans begin to lay themselves out logically.

This can bring up problems if the programme of the building changes or expands, and will therefore require a space that is versatile in its planning; another key driver.

Access to Light: To create a productive and desirable environment there should be access to light throughout as much of the building as possible. Therefore the spaces have been layed out in a way that will maximise light entering deep into the floor plan. This is also linked to structural drivers such as the artium, which is a tool for drawing light into the building through the south facade, Open Plan: A positive working environment is often seen as an open and transparent one.

This is desirable for the given programme.

This shall be achieved through the structural drivers of uninterrupted rooms, by spanning large distances and minimising columns numbers. This also will allow for the potential for variable/flexible spaces, which is the final strategic driver.

Variable Spaces: It is not unlikely for a business to expand or shrink, or change its programme. By creating spaces that are flexible and able to accommodate a range of programmes, the building will become more effective over a longer time period. This however could create spaces that might be seen as generic or uninteresting, so lighting strategies and materiality shall be importantt.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Infill Site vs Corner Site: At the corner site the core location is more obvious than at the infill site, given its party walls. However its access to light is not as easy as that of the infill site, meaning the spatial arrangement will be limiting in comparison to that of the infill site.

Infill Site vs End Site: The end site is the most similar to the infill site in terms of its orientation and context, both seeing some sunlight to the South-East, and a party wall to the SouthWest. Therefore the solar parameters found here are likely to be applied to the end site too. Despite this, I think the core is likely to be on the South-West side.

Infill Site vs Island Site: Orientation at the island site is unrestrictive, and allows the designer to gain the best solar conditions, unlike the infill site. Some of the same strategic drivers found at the infill site will still be applied to the island site, such as open plan spaces, and a hierarchy of space. Similarly to the arrangement shown on this page, the south side of the building on the island site is probably to be left exposed for solar gain purposes, which would suggest the core should be on the north side, similar to thie infill.

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:200

TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR PLAN 1:200

Atrium cafeterium on South side of building.

Stairwell used for both accommodation and fire escape.

Kitchen and canteen.

Also containing cleaning cupboard.

Atrium overlooking cafe, maximising light.

Lifts embedded in circulation core.

Main atrium space, possibility of events and exhibition space.

Main office space for employees, grouped in tables for space efficiency.

Ground Floor toilets, Male, Female, and disabled.

Large office space used for Human Resources, and main reception.

Flexible open space, used for adaptations to programme.

Services cupboard, this shaft will take services to all floors.

Lifts and stairwell remain consistent through building.

Meeting space, placed on North side because of its restricted schedule

Cantelever threshold.

Offering shelter and embrace into building.

Toilets including disabled access.

Managerial space, left open for potential expansion and nerby to windows.

Main Entrance, double doors into glazed atrium space.

Cleaners cupboard and office storage/ filing.

Reflection:

Reflection:

Ground Floor Internal Visualisation

There are several elements in this initial ground floor plan that will require alterations to improve the overall performance and experience of this building. These include potential for better spacing for services, and cafe arrangement which could require altering after running environmental analysis.

CORE LOCATION: PLAN STUDY

Office Floor Internal Visualisation

This office has been orgaised with a heavy emphasis on potential expansion and the possible need for greater accommodation. However perhaps there has not been enough consideration for the current experience and use of this building. Such as, the managerial desks being situated on the North side of the building.

CORE LOCATION: ISOMETRIC

CORE DIAGRAM A range of core configurations were experimented with here to find the best suited for the climate, structure, and programme.

The core location that was chosen is to sit along the North-East party wall, and run to the East corner of the building. This was chosen to minimise impact on the two open facades, which can be used for solar gain and lighting the interiors. A steel frame is flexible and did not limit the core location. This also allows for the fire escape to egress users to the back street.

REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SERVICES

SPRINKLERS

ACCESS

ELECTRICITY

EGRESS

HVAC CORE LIGHTING

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

WEEK 1 1.3 INTEGRATIVE DESIGN CONCEPT

KEY PERSPECTIVE VIEW

DETAILED SECTION THROUGH ENVELOPE

SUMMARY OF INITIAL DESIGN

Roof terrace with balustrade.

Having appraised climate, site, structural systems, skin, and general arrangement, several key design drivers were generated.

These have informed the initial design that I have produced, as has been shown graphically and verbally through this portfolio. On this page there are a selction of key drawings that demonstrate my scheme and its concepts graphically.

Vertical Aluminium louvre with supporting steel fixing.

PERSONAL RESPONSE

Glaxed curtain wall, with steel frame structure

3750mm 2750mm

Glass balusrade, 900mm high

Threshold created by structural cantelever.

The aim for this initial design was to create a building that was responsive to its context and climate in a way that pushed the structural systems to an exciting and architecturally enjoyable solution. Below is a brief summary of elements of the design where this has been achieved, and some improvements which need to be made to hit this aim.

South Facing atrium,3000mm deep

Main entrance to building.

Successes: This building has responded to site by analysing conditions on a climatic scale (temperature, precipitation etc.) and a local level (sun path, wind path etc.), to orientate the building in the most suitable direction for the given programme. The main entrance and ‘front’ of the building is on the North-West side of the site.

An infill site often struggles to capture light and draw it into the building, however through placing light wells down one party wall, and pulling the floor plates back from the south facade to create and atrium space I have acheived this. Light now penetrates deep into the building, creating an enjoyable working environment.

The atrium will provide effective solar gain to heat the space in the cold winters, and vents at the top of the atrium will counter this by using the stack effect in hot summers to cool the space.

Composite metal deck slab: -Concrete -Metal deck -Steel beam -Suspended ceiling

Structural core informing the form of the building.

Typical working environement

Views from street level show the building integrated into its context.

KEY ELEVATION (WEST) Vertical Louvres

3000mm

Building services This section was chosen for its connection to the atirum. This device has been put in place on the south facade to allow light deeper into the building, and open the possibility of using the stack effect in summer.

TYPICAL OFFICE SECTION Curtain wall glazing

Roof Terrace

Floor to Floor services

3000mm structural grid

Lift shaft, one of two lifts in building

3750mm Floor to Floor

Using a cantelever over the North-West facade has created a threshold, giving the building a natural pause before entering the building which adds to the architectural experience, and breaks up the streetscape. This has also been put in place to counter Moscow’s climate which sees heavy precipitation (rain or snow) throughout the year. This was possible due to the structural properties of a steel frame.

Roof terrace, unobstructed views and light Lightwell, draws light deep into plan along party wall

Improvements: Potential for renewable energy sources has yet explored to be, such as Solar PV cells on the roof of the core, and ground source heat pumps.

Working environment, 4 floors in case of expansion, and to raise the terrace

The effectiveness of the atrium has not been fully quantified yet, and may need to be pushed back by a further 3000mm to allow light deep into the plan. There is enough space inside the plan for this, and will add to the architectural experience.

The louvres on the North-West facade may not be deep enough to prevent glare into the building, or may be too deep and restrict light entering the building. This shall be determined during environmental analysis.

Structural column to break up span of building

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Ground floor cafe kitchen

Other members of my group have faced different parameters which has led different creatvie drivers and has ultimately been what has created a different design. For example, designing in Riyadh has proven to be a testing environment, in such a way that the site drivers have taken a lower priority than those of the climate. The opposite can be said for Munich, which does not see extreme weather, meaning the design has been highly centered around the site drivers. My project has tried to balance the priorities of climate and site, and where possible has linked the outputs together.

In addition, the structural systems used have created differences in each of the designs shown here, each having their own parameters e.g span, loadbearing properties, aesthetics, thermal mass etc. Similarly to other members of the group I have tried to use the structural system to an aesthetic benefit too, making a better, more enjoyable design.

3750mm

Piled foundations and elevator dig out

The key facade shown here has been selected because of its main entrance, and solar shading devices. In this proposal there is four floors of office space, to bring the building in line with its context and ensure the roof terrace experiences sufficient daylighting. The vertical louvres have been added to alternate structural column lines, as to provide the optimum shading without comprimising daylighting inside the building. On this facade all ground level surfaces are glazed, to prevent a dark and uncomfortable thershold from being produced. Shown as a darker colour are the floor build ups and ceiling services space, which has been given 1000mm of space. In the final designs these are likely to be treated with a non glazed surface or metal panel.

3000mm

On the South-West side of the building the floor plates have been pulled away from the wall to create a lightwell along the party wall.

This is to allow light to penetrate throughout the building and connect users to their external environment.

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

DAYLIGHT FACTOR

PROPOSAL IN CONTEXT

FLOOR PLANS

WEEK 2 2.1 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS PROPOSED TEST

The initial test of this buildings environmental performance will gauge a ‘Benchmark’ from which the iterations shall build upon and show a progressive improvement in the data. This shall begin with a basic specification. The building will only use single glazing, with a U-Value of 5.15 W/m2K. From this test I shall observe the lighting footprints, and the energy data produced by this specification. The core will not be considered part of the open wall area, as it will never be glazed.

4th Floor

View of South-East facade

EXPECTED RESULT As this is the initial test and the specifications are far lower than they could be, the results should show low performance and much room for improvement. Using single glazing should show up as the major contributor to energy losses, and also the driver that could have the greatest impact for change in environmental performance. I expect the South-East side of the building to be the most well lit, thanks to the pulled back floor plates creating an atrium, and the Northern hemispher’s sunpath passing South. The lightwell on the South-West edge of the building should hopefully have some influence on the daylighting of the space too, however the effectiveness of this element on lower floors is yet to be seen,

3rd Floor

Annual analysis of daylight factor

OBSERVED RESULT Largely, this result was as expected. The thermal performance was poor, and the building required vast ammounts of energy to suffiiently heat all floors in the cold conditions of Moscow. The greatest losses of energy in this building were thermal via conduction, which can be attributed to the single glazing treatment given to the entire facade. The second greatest loss was through infiltration, again due to the poor quality of glazing. This was not a foreseen factor, however it is improveable.

The benefits of the orientation of this building were as expected, with solar gain from the South and East being the most influential factors. An unexpected result was for the atrium to be perceived at overlit at times in the summer. This could be changed with louvres.

View of North-West facade OVERLIT & UNDERLIT

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

ENERGY USEAGE

1st Floor

CONCLUSIONS Overall, the test a useful tool that reinforced the expectation and provided a quantifiable baseline from which the following iterations shall improve. The energy results were nearly all as were expected; sunlight to the South and East being the only notable energy gains, and large losses which are mainly attributed to the single glazing treatment. This results shall improve as the quality of glazing is increased, and the quantity of glazing is decreased. The unforeseen results came from the light footprints, which showed the atrium to be overlit at times, and lightwell to have minimal effect on the lower floors.

These are factors which will be changed as my design progresses and continues to be informed by the environmental data I collect.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Some of the problems seen in this scheme were mirrored by other proposals. For example the ability to predict whether a space would be ‘well lit’ or ‘overlit’ was hard for all, leading to most feeling the need to change their design having been informed by this.

Single glazing proved to be a problem for most climates, the scheme in Munich required large ammounts of energy to heat the building (similar to Moscow), whereas the single glazing meant the solar gains in Riyadh and Bangalore were far greater than desired, This created a space that needed to be cooled unnecessarily. The 100% glazing starting point also contributed to this result.

Overall, all schemes showed up problems that had not been expected, and has not led to the need to develop and re-design spaces.

2nd Floor

0% Overlit: Over 93 footcandles of direct light for more than 250 occupied hours per year Underlit: Less than 28 footcandles for more than 50% of occupied hours

100%

Percentage of days over the entire analysis period receiving a minimum of 3 hours per day of direct sunlight

JUSTIFICATION FOR SHOWN DAYLIGHTING

HEAT LOSS VIA CONDUCTION

Ground Floor

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 5.15 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.49 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 218

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 179836 Cooling: 7480

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core) Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core) Low quality facade treatment, and a high glazing to wall ratio form the baseline for this testing process.

Results are expected to improve from this point.

Gains + Losses: Hugely significant losses are made through glazing conduction and infiltration. Some gains are made through solar energy however.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

SINGLE GLAZING

WEEK 2 2.2.1 ITERATIVE TESTING GLAZING U-VALUES

Munich saw a similar trend of increased cooling costs with triple glazing, however this was to a greater extent than in Moscow due to longer summers and warmer winters. Therefore in Munich double glazing might be a better specification than triple glazing.

In Riyadh and Bangalore, the hot climates meant that double glazing had a positive effect, but triple glazing struggled to keep the spaces cool. In these climates the shading devices used are more important than the glazing strategies as they prevent solar gain far better. This is the opposite effect to the desired effect of this project in Moscow.

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 218

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 179836 Cooling: 7480

Low quality facade treatment, and a high glazing to wall ratio form the baseline for this testing process.

Results are expected to improve from this point.

Gains + Losses: Hugely significant losses are made through glazing conduction and infiltration. Some gains are made through solar energy however.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 3.13 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 197

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 157856 Cooling: 6970

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

Increased glazing treatment to double glazing with air cavity. This should improve performance of facade and reduce heat loss slightly, as reflected in the graphs.

Gains + Losses: Some improvements have been made through upgrading to double glazing. glazing conduction is lower, and slight infiltration is reduced

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 2.33 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 181

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 138471 Cooling: 7477

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core)

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

DOUBLE GLAZING (LOW-E)

Having seen the thermal gains made by using high quality glazing it is clear that this is a necessary move to be made if the building is to meet the aims I have set for the project. I acknowledge the negative effects triple glazing has on the cooling costs of the building, however these costs will only be during several weeks of the year. During these weeks, the stack effect can be implemented in the South atrium, which will drastically reduce the cooling costs.

This is something that the Sefaira programme cannot account for.

The benefits of using triple glazing far outweigh the negative impacts that it holds. When also considering the climatic conditions of this site, I have decided to use triple glazing throughout the building.

The other climates saw similar results to this project, in that the performace of their buildings improved up to a point, however there came a point where negative effects were found with high quality glazing.

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core)

CONCLUSIONS

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

DOUBLE GLAZING

OBSERVED RESULT The results shown here demonstrate that the expected results were true. These results can be seen in green text (improvements) and red text (deteriorations), on the far side of the page. The results show that as the quality of glazing increases, the energy requirements for thebuilding decrease. Heating costs were progressively lower with every iteration. However, an unforeseen change occurred with the higher quailty glazings. Cooling costs increased with Low-E and Triple glazing because of its ability to trap heat, which in the summer will create very hot office space unless cooled. This will only happen for several weeks per year. When using triple glazing, the savings made in heating the space less outweigh the additional useage for cooling the space.

Glazing U-Value = 5.15 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core)

The first test of this iterative process will be centred around the glazing treatment, and will build upon the benchmark analysis. In this test the glazing treatments that will be analyised are: Single glazing, Double glazing, Double glazing (Low-E), and Triple glazing.

This shall be manifested in a quantifiable study of U-Values. Lower U-Value showing a better thermal performance. The results shall be interpreted and a glazing strategy for the building will be chosen.

Building upon the conclusions found in the benchmark analysis, that the single glazing was contributing to significant heat loss via conduction, I expect as the glazing increases the heating requirements shall decrease. Another problem incovered in the benchmark analysis was that of infiltration. The expected results should show that infiltration decreases as the quality of glazing increases, especially with triple glazing. Cost would be expected to increase, however for this project cost is not a parameter that would rule out a material or specification. As these iterations all use 100% glazing treatments, the overall energy levels will still remain high, however this is a parameter that will be changed in a later test.

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core)

PROPOSED TEST

EXPECTED RESULT

PARAMETER VALUES

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core)

Low-E double glazing is used in this iteration for its ‘low emissity’ ratings. A clear metallic coating is applied to the gladd to reduce hear loss, as well as 2 panes.

Gains + Losses: Similarly to the previous iteration, by inreasing the quality of the glazing, the performace has improved.

Heat loss is reduced again, but infiltration remains.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 164

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 123486 Cooling: 7966

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core)

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

TRIPLE GLAZING

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core) Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core) High quality glazing treatment of three panes of glass, with air cavities between each. This has the highest standard of thermal performance of the shown iterations.

Gains + Losses: Slight improvements over the results of the Low-E double glazing, however the improvement seems to have experienced a plateau.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

1:0 GLAZING

WEEK 2 2.2.2 ITERATIVE TESTING GLAZING SURFACE AREA

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 164

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 123486 Cooling: 7966

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core)

The test proposed here shall entail changing the proportion of glazing to wall on both avaliable facades. Both facades will experience the same treatment for each iteration. The values for this test will be:

All facade area that is exposed and not part of the structural core is triple glazed. This is the benchmark for lighting that was carried forward from the previous test.

-75% Glazing (3:1) -50% Glazing (1:1) -25% Glazing (1:3)

I expect to see that as the surface area of glazing decreases and wall increases, the annual lighting footprint will deteriorate. This will create low light levels deep in the plan, but will not effect the lighting near the facades.

The results of this test showed the expected results were correct.

As glazing to wall ratio decreased, the day lighting performance decreased. However there was an improvement in energy loads that accompanied these results as the walls have lower U-Values.

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 154

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 119331 Cooling: 6743

The full width of one structural bay has been glazed on each open facade. The other three bays have been left glazed. The non-glazed section is group as a single area.

Gains + Losses: There has been slight losses in the daylighting performance of the building, however as this bay is in the middle of the building it is even.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 149 Gains + Losses: The floor space that is over lit has dropped, as has the well lit space.

The area of under lit space has increased significantly, as shown.

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 133633 Cooling: 5749

CONCLUSIONS The following tests will invovle experimenting with the distribution of glazing, as so far the glazing has only been grouped as a single mass.

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:1 (excluding core)

Some trade offs will need to happen between light and energy performance, which I expect to be a glazing solutions of roughly 75% surface area. The iterations shall distribute a consistent area of glazing which coinsides with the structural bays of the facade.

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = 2 Groups (excluding core) Two structural bays have now been filled with wall, while two bays remain glazed. They are kept separate and alternate between bays. All glazing remains triple.

Another test for the atrium structure and lighting may need to be carried out, to maximise light entering the building when considering contextual shading to the south.

Munich would probably be best suited to a facade with a high proportion of glazing to wall, as it has a temperate climate. Moscow and Riyadh are best suited environmentally to a building with low glazing ratios to help with thermal insulation and solar shading respectively.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 23 Well-lit: 52 Underlit: 25

1:1 GLAZING

This trade off was anticipated, hence setting up the 75% and 50% glazing iterations, which are closest to the anticipated solution.

However this test gave different energy load results for each climate.

Moscow saw the greatest reduction in energy savings, as the lower U-value of walls increased the thermal performance. A significant difference was also noticed in Riyadh, where high glazing surface area causes unwanted solar gain. Less glazing kept the building cooler.

Overlit: 30 Well-lit: 46 Underlit: 24

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core)

OBSERVED RESULT

All other members of my group saw the same trends of lighting performance when the glazing to wall ratio was decreased, showing this as a factor that is not largely affected by climatic conditions.

Daylighting (%):

PARAMETER VALUES

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

However, I expect energy loads to decrease as the surface area of glazing decreases. This is because glazing has a higher U-value than typical well insulated walls.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Gains + Losses: Slight improvements over the results of the Low-E double glazing, however the improvement seems to have experienced a plateau.

3:1 GLAZING

These parameters were chosen to give a broad range of values for the glazing to wall ratio, and take the results further than the value that will be used in the final design to identify trends.

Therefore a trade-off has been set up. A well lit space has poor environmental performance, whereas a poorly lit space has good environmental performance. A solution will be found in the middle.

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:0 (excluding core)

PROPOSED TEST

EXPECTED RESULT

PARAMETER VALUES

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 13 Well-lit: 42 Underlit: 45

1:3 GLAZING PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 141

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 107862 Cooling: 4873

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 1:3 (excluding core) Glass Distribution (as drawn) = 3 Groups (excluding core) All facade is filled with wall, bar one row of glazing down a structural bay on either facade.

This has resulted in a poorly lit space on all levels.

Gains + Losses: Continuing the trend of the past iterations in this test, the percentage of floor space that is well lit has decreased as wall area has increased.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 7 Well-lit: 18 Underlit: 75

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C

GROUPED

WEEK 2 2.2.3 ITERATIVE TESTING GLAZING DISTRIBUTION

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

PROPOSED TEST This third test measures the daylighting and environmental performance of the building depending on the distribution of glazing, using between 75% and 50% glazing on free facades. The configurations that will be tested are: -Horizontal -Vertical -Scattered/Hybrid

EXPECTED RESULT

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core) The end point from the previous test on glazing to wall ratio is carried forward here as the start point for a glazing distribution test. Three vertical groups.

see that the solutions with glazing grouped larger areas will have poor environmental compared to the other solutions. This is loss occurs more readily at glazing than at walls.

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 154

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 66797 Cooling: 7860

Gains + Losses: The space is evenly lit, giving good light footprints, however the large groups of glazing are causing significant heat loss.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 28 Well-lit: 47 Underlit: 24

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 153

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 63143 Cooling: 7425

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

Horizontally grouped glazing on both facades. Wall is covering the structure between floors on both facades.

Glazing distribution is consistant across all floors.

Gains + Losses: The energy performance has slightly improved on the previous iteration, this is becasue the glazing is no longer in large areas causing heat loss.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 147

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 57745 Cooling: 6363

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = 3 Groups (excluding core)

However some solutions will have a better lighting performance, meaning the final design will be a trade-off of these factors.

OBSERVED RESULT Generally, the results were as expected, however in some cases the lighting footprints gave results that were unexpected. This has led to me reconsidering some elements of the design and will be adjusted.

As the performance of daylighting improved, the environmental performance often dropped. There is a causal link between large glazing areas and significant heat loss via conduction.

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

HORIZONTAL

The parameters were chosen to give a variation of test results, some parameters were chosen with a better lighting solution in mind, others with a better energy performance in mind.

I expect to together in performance because heat

PARAMETER VALUES

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 28 Well-lit: 48 Underlit: 24

LINEAR

The North side and South side handled the tests differently, suggesting a different glazing treatment may be necessary to provide the best overall design solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

Building upon these test results, and previous tests, the logical step will be to next reconsider the interior arrangement of the atrium and floor plates. This will be to gain the best daylighting performance. It is clear that the final deisgn will involve tradeoffs between daylighting and environmental performance.

Vertically grouping the glazing gives a greater aesthetic and improves the architectural experience in the atrium, A similar treatment has been given to the north side.

Gains + Losses: With this iteration the glazing area has decreased slightly, causing better energy performance, however it has comprimised lighting.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 150

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 62999 Cooling: 7470

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = 2 Groups (excluding core)

The data produced here is not unusual and there is no anomalies, suggesting that the model has been constructed correctly and the hypothesis given above was correct.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 17 Well-lit: 48 Underlit: 45

For the next test I shall carry forward the Scattered iteration here.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Munich saw results of a similar nature to those of this project in Moscow, as their climates are closest alike. The Munich project has also concluded that a trade-off between glazing and environmental performance is necessary, with some aesthetic consideration too.

The project in Bangalore has concluded that glazing will be largely dictated by other climatic conditions such as wind, to cool the spaces. This is similar to my scheme in Moscow, however it has used Solar path as a key driver, rather than wind.

In Riyadh, the key factor is not glazing, as much as it is shading. This scheme has allowed shading and sun path to be the drivers for glazing, providing the best solution to cool the spaces. This is the same concept as my scheme, in reverse.

SCATTERED

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core) Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Full (excluding core) A hybrid of two glazing solutions; a horizontal treatment on the North facade (less glazing), and a scattered distribution on the South facade (more glazing).

Gains + Losses: By increasing the glazing on the south facade there has been an improvement on daylighting, but at a cost of energy performance.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 25 Well-lit: 50 Underlit: 25

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 2 2.2.4 ITERATIVE TESTING ATRIUM

BASIC ATRIUM

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 150

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 62999 Cooling: 7470

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

PROPOSED TEST The final test in this iterative process is a return to designled experimentation. The parameter for this test is the size and vertical organisation of the Southern atrium. All iterations use the scattered glazing strategy. Iterations include: - Extended atrium - Alternating atrium - Stepped atrium

EXPECTED RESULT

PARAMETER VALUES

Benchmark for this test will be the finished iteration from the glazing distribution test. This will use a scattered distribution, with the atrium spanning a single bay.

Gains + Losses: These results were well recieved considering the high percentage of glazing, however the day lighting could be improved upon.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 152

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 63143 Cooling: 7425

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Scattered (excluding core)

EXTENDED ATRIUM

The results I expect to see for this test should show that by increasing the size of the atrium and pulling back the floor plates the daylighting of the higher levels is improved. The energy results should also improve.

Atrium arrangements that were chosen were based off the knowledge gained through previous tests, and climate and site appraisals, that have given me an understanding of the project.

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 25 Well-lit: 50 Underlit: 25

I expect energy loads to improve slightly, however not dramatically.

Some iterations may see poorer energy results due to large voids.

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Scattered (excluding core)

OBSERVED RESULT

This iteration extends the atrium to two structural bays, this is with the hope of drawing more light into the floor plans. This also adds to the architectural experience.

Gains + Losses: Energy performance for this iteration was worse than those of the benchmark, the day lighting was also poorer than the starting point.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 149

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 57389 Cooling: 5402

The results observed here proved correct some of the results I anticipated. Increasing the size and organisation of the atrium can improve the lighting performance of the entire building.

The energy performance changed by reducing overall floor area which saved on electrical and heating consumption. However some of these iterations that performed better in the environmental tests, produced poor results in the lighting analysis. E.g. alternating atrium

ALTERNATING ATRIUM

The stepped atrium performed best overall in the energy tests and lighting tests. This will be the design carried forward to the final stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core)

Having completed the iterative testing, the whole building will now be reviewed before generating a final design. This may include analysing wall, floor, and roof, build up and U-values.

The stepped atrium will become part of the scattered glazing iteration, to act as a preliminary final design. This will shown on following pages.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS As this test was not a requirement of the brief and was unique to this project, other members of the group did not have comparible results.

However, if this test was ran in a climate such as Munich, similar results may have been obtained. There may be more scope to extend the atrium without sacrificing energy performance than in Moscow.

If this test was to occur in Bangalore, there may be operable glazing rather than fixed glazing, to create a more comfortable environment.

Riyadh, being an extremely hot climate would not favour a South facing atrium. Therefore it would require measures to make this more habitable. These include solar shading (louvres), and a smaller distance from the curtain walling to minimise solar gain.

STEPPED ATRIUM

Overlit: 28 Well-lit: 48 Underlit: 24

In this iteration the floor plates alternate between 3m atrium space and 6m atrium space. This is to act as a half-way point between the previous two iterations.

Gains + Losses: The environmental performances were the best yet, however the lighting performance was still not good enough for the final design.

PARAMETER VALUES

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Glazing U-Value = 1.37 W/m2K (single glazing) Wall U-Value = 0.23 W/m2K

Intensity Value check: (kWh/m2/yr)

Energy Load: (kWh/yr)

2030 Challenge: 86 Actual: 147

Lighting: 23731 Heating: 56827 Cooling: 5419

Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Scattered (excluding core)

Through this process I have made trade-offs between lighting and energy performance, and architectural experience. However I am now satisfied that this process has ran its course, and must move on.

Daylighting (%):

Glazed wall : Solid Wall = 3:1 (excluding core) Glass Distribution (as drawn) = Scattered (excluding core) Final iteration as a stepped atrium, the top two floor plates pulled back further than the two floor plates below.

Architectural experience was a driver in this iteration.

Gains + Losses: The environmental performance was better than any iteration before it, and the daylightig levels were better than the benchmark.

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 19 Well-lit: 51 Underlit: 30

Daylighting (%): Overlit: 25 Well-lit: 50 Underlit: 25

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 2 2.3 INTEGRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SUMMARY OF DESIGN This design has been informed by appraisals of climate, context, structural systems, and building skin, as well as iterative testing of environmental performance. Having quantified the performance of this building with data, here I present the passive and active environmental systems that will be integrated into the scheme.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RAINWATER COLLECTION

Rain and snow run off is collected vis drainage systems for use in toilets and cooling water in the building.

ANNUAL DAYLIGHTING

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

SOLAR PV CELLS

TERRACE GARDEN

Over lit

100%

Upon the roof of the core there are solar PV cells to generate low energy lighting throughout the office floors.

Reducing energy consumption.

To reduce the environmental footprint, roof terrace could grow produce to be used in the office kitchen downstairs.

Raising awareness.

Well lit

75%

Sufficiently lit

50%

Under lit

<25%

Strategies: There are several strategies that have been implemented to improve the buildings natural daylighting, such as lightwells, skylights, atria, and solar PV to save electricity. These all contribute to making the building as anjoyable as possible in a climate which sometimes may not offer optimum conditions.

ENERGY PERFORMANCE

LIGHTING EXTREMES Over lit

Losses

Under lit

Gains

Techniques used to ensure efficitent and economical heating of this building include, exposed thermal mass to maintain consistant temperatures, green roof insulation, and south facing atrium for solar gain. Combined, these will save enrgy and help the building through Moscow’s harsh winter conditions.

Other strategies implemented for the building’s benefit include shelter, shading, rainwater collection, roof gardens, high specification materials, and effective build up’s throughout.

SOUTH FACADE TREATMENT

Trade-off: Throughout the design process trade-offs and compromises are inevitable, and this has been no excpetion. During the iterative tests decisions were made to balance energy consumption with architectural experience. For example, reduced heat loss at the cost of poor daylighting. Despite this, the design presented here is a well-rounded and efficient proposal that meets the brief.

Plant room at top of services shaft

Shelter from snow and rain upon arrival at roof terrace

Conclusions: In summary, the strategies shown here were selected based on their appropriateness to site, climate, and structure. All of the systems implemented add to the building in some way, be it environmental, architectural, or economical.

Operable glazing for stack effect and additional daylighting

This building successfully meets the brief on all levels required so far, presenting a solution that is desirable to a client. However there are still elements which require resolution, as well as all systems being reviewed throughout the process for their suitability in the design.

From here, the materiality and This will also design until it

design will enter a detailed phase, where structure will be at the forefront of work. follow an iterative process, improving the is able to perform to exceptional levels.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Solar gain from more glazing than north facade

Solar PV cells make use of Moscow’s long days

Less glazing than Operable glazing Cantelever for South facade, to for stack effect/ shelter from rain limit heat loss cross ventilation in and snow summer

Vertical louvres for low sun angles on North-West facade

Spandrel panel hides thick insulation. Good U-values

Insulation integrated into wall panels to minimise thermal losses via conduction

Lightwell draws natural light into lower floors along party wall

THERMAL MASS HEAT STORE

GREEN ROOF INSULATION

SOUTH FACING ATRIUM

STACK EFFECT

During the day, sun from the south facing atrium will heat up the exposed concrete slab, utilising its thermal mass. At night, the heat is slowly released, keeping the space warm while it is not in use. This maintains a more even temperature throughout the day, saving significant heating energy.

On the roof terrace of this building there will be several large planting beds, which add significant ammounts of thermal insulation to the roof. in summer these will prevent the building from over heating.

This will be coupled with snow in the winter, which should make for a highly insulated roof build up.

To maximise solar gain, which will warm the building passively throughout the year, the floor plates have been pulled away from the facade to create this atrium. The atrium is stepped to maximise light deep into the floor plan. Exposed concrete will absorb this heat utilising thermal mass.

Due to hot conditions in Moscow in summer, the building requires an effective cooling system that does not require large openings. The stack effect may be implimented by opening glazing on lower floors and feeding air through skylights/vents on the roof.

These skylights will light the interior all year round.

Although the climate and context largely dictate the need for environmental strategies, there has been some overlap between systems.

In Munich, thermal mass is also being used to heat the spaces during winter, and with a concrete frame and better sunlighting, this system will most likely out perform the thermal mass in Moscow. Several other systems are being used in both climates, indicating thier similarities.

In Bangalore, a green roof will act as a heat sink, and absorb heat to keep the building cool, while being a suitable climate for growing plants and vegetables for the building. A similar system to that of the one used in my scheme, but with a different purpose.

In Riyadh, the climate is so different to that of Moscow that there are few systems used in both climates. Many of the strategies used here, such as a glazed southern facade, would be undesirable and detrimental to the comfort of users. Here, a brick and mortar or timber construction may be more suitable to the climate.

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 3 3.1 PERSONAL POSITION + INTEGRATIVE PROPOSITION

NORTH WEST FACADE

SOUTH EAST FACADE

SUMMARY

The north facade will need to manipulate light, prevent precipitation, and create a threshold through creative use of structure and glazing systems. The facade will need to navigate live loads safely to the primary structure, and remain water tight and enivonrmentally impressive.

There are opportunities to create seamless finishes, architecturally stimulating lighting, and integration of passive systems. Below are comments on these issues and opportunities.

The South side of this building has different parameters and challenges, creating a unique set of opportunities for creative design. These include seamless exterior finishes, passive strategies, and positive aesthetic qualities. There are several details which require clarification, such as the balustrade, and connection between curtain wall and ground floor slab. These details will be calculated through iterative drawings, shown on the following sheets.

Having appraised and tested the proposal, the building will now be detailed to show the systems that allow for the architectural experiences that have been designed. This sheet shows the two facades in detail, and discusses the challenges faced by each, and opportuniries that can be used for creative design.

Cantilever, Cantilever, where North facade glazing, North facade glazing, Cantilever, how does structure how do louvres continuation of claddding is attached does damp proof membrane go? meet glazing? connect to facade? facade around corner. to transoms under the cantilever.

Balustrade, connection to structure need clarification.

Design Rigor: The five key design drivers for this facade are: Sun angles, Solar gain, Temperature variation, Aesthetic qualities, Heat retention.

An office building on this site is very feasible with a steel frame construction. It does not limit opportunities for creative design, whereas the climate of Moscow does restrict certain design features.

For this site and climate I would recommend using a concrete frame with metal panel construction, to increase thermal mass and in turn reduce energy consumption to acheive the same internal conditions.

Entrance, sleek connection to ground floor slab.

1m

1m

Integrative Proposition: Using the key motivators for the building and from a personal level, I aim to design creatvie detailing that meets these requirements.

These features are discussed alongside the drawings shown on this sheet. They include underside lighting on the cantilever, continuous treatment around the cantilever, and seamless construction joints.

Conclusion: This initial detail of both facades has shown that there is a need for iterative drawings to clarify elements of these facades.

There is also scope for good creative design in the facade, which will create good architectural experience, and which will be detailed later. I am confident that the concepts behind this design are sound, and acheivable with the structural system allocated. Overall, the design is on track to meet the project brief.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Transoms, hidden behind structural beam to create a clean facade.

Ground floor slab, positioning of insulation and damp proofing needs clarification.

Design to be detailed

Spandrel panels, Cantilever lighting, filled with insulation opportunity for lights to minimise heat loss under the cantilever. via conduction.

CANTILEVER STRUCTURE

Other members of the group held different architectural positions to myself, influenced by the climate and system they are building with.

Despite this there are some common factors which we could agree on.

For example, the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs and experience was a priority for all. However, the importance of passively controlling the environment proved some differences in opinions. This was similar to the need to consider environmental impact of the building.

In the case of Riyadh, one group member was open to using higher levels of mechanical ventilation, to achieve a better architectural experience. A similar argument could be presented for the heating costs of my building in Moscow.

Mullions, opportunity to create seamless curtain walling.

Design to be detailed

Entrance, how does structure connect to ground level windows.

Personal Response + Theory: The personal key motivators for this design were: Enjoyable workspace, Connection to environment, Adaptable spaces, Expansion scope, Passively controlled space. I would situate myself towards a current 21st Century theoretical approach to social design, placing the user at the centre of design.

Transferable Design Techniques: Skills and techniques used in this process that can be used in other processes include: Iterative testing, Arrangement based on structure, Site analysis, Progressive detailing, Sectional design. Designs should be formed upon strong basis, to create theoretically good design, and to allow the design to remain focused through the process of realisation. Design should consider future use and thecontinually changing needs of users.

This will also keep the design in line with all building regulations.

Internal finishes, fixing of balcony finishing panels need clarification

PRIMARY STRUCTURE SECONDARY STRUCTURE TERTIARY STRUCTURE FOUNDATION CAPS

Cantilever, infill panel above doorway, prevents cold bridging.

Floor slab, thick layer of concrete to maximise thermal mass potential.

Foundations, pile foundations under a series of foundation beams and slab.

Exposed concrete, for solar gain through thermal mass of floor slab.

Services, suspended ceiling holds all services.

Damp Proofing, position of membrane needs detailing.

CANTILEVER CONCEPT

Exposed Structure, atrium structure is left exposed and celebrated.

ATRIUM STRUCTURE The concept behind the cantilever is to offer shelter from Moscowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high levels of precipitation, and to create a threshold. The road this building sits upon does not offer any natural pauses of flow to the entrance.

Therefore the cantilever offers this entrance threshold and a space to help the user through the building.

The cantilever is only a single structural bay deep.

Curtain wall, ground level connection can be seamless while water tight.

ATRIUM CONCEPT

PRIMARY STRUCTURE SECONDARY STRUCTURE TERTIARY STRUCTURE FOUNDATION CAPS

The atrium has several purposes, some of which are architecturally and others environmentally. By drawings the floor plates back there is greater natural daylighting in the building. There is also the opportunity for creating the stack effect here. This is acheived while creating an architecturallu enjoyable space that draws the users together and creates connections between floors.

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 3 3.2 ITERATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CURTAIN WALL DETAILS Summary of Process

- North Facade follows traditional curtain wall ideas, made up of floor-to-ceiling glazing and infill spandrel panels.

- Glazing panels clip into a series of mullions and transoms (secondary structure), which is in turn attached to the primary steel structure.

- Mullions attach to beams rather than columns, as there are more mullions than columns.

-”L-plate” bracket offers a connection between primary beams an secondary mullions. Capping on mullions is left simple, unless at the same location as a louvre.

- Louvres are connected to the secondary structure as the cap on mullions.

- Secondary structure is aluminium, lightweight and strong in both tension and compression.

- ‘I-beam’ used for structural and aesthetic purposes. Remains exposed on both facades and is consistent throughout the building.

CURTAIN WALL DETAILS North Curtain Wall - Plan

South Curtain Wall - Plan

300mm

WALL TO FLOOR DETAILS

WALL TO FLOOR DETAILS

Summary of Process

Wall to Floor - Section

Curtain Wall - Section

300mm

300mm

Wall to Floor With Spandrel Panel - Section

- Variety of possible connections between wall and floor. However North facade is the only facade that experiences wall to floor connections, as South facade holds the atrium.

- Transoms are brought in line with top of the composite metal deck, creating a consistent floor level up to the glazing.

- Transom located at the top and bottom of each floor. Spandrel panel connects between the two.

- Spandrel panel is Kingspan Insulated Metal panel. This offers opportunity to fill with insulation, reducing heat loss through facade.

- Facade is completely sealed and therefore no requirement for damp proof membrane.

- Suspended ceiling is lowered to fall in line with the lower transom.

This gap holds services, including pipes, cables, and lighting.

-Composite metal deck sits upon the structural grid.

- Gaps between suspended ceiling panels offer opportunities for services to effect space below.

- Concrete of Metal composite deck is left exposed for aesthetic purposes, and for solar gain via thermal mass.

300mm

300mm

CANTILEVER DETAILS

CANTILEVER DETAILS

Summary of Process

Cantilever Corner - Section

Cantilever to Ground Floor Glazing - Section

- Cantilever was inroduced to create threshold and shelter upon entrance, required in Moscow’s rainy climate.

- Cantilever is one structural bay deep, 3000mm.

- Below the last transom of North facade, a continuous infill panel wraps around the corner.

- Several transoms are bolted to centilever beams, to which infill panels are clipped.

- Insulation in these panels offers good thermal performance and reduces heat loss significantly.

- LED lights are placed within each of the panels, to illuminate the cantilever in Moscow’s dark climate.

- These lights create breaks in the water proof line, therefore a vapour barrier is required to seal the building.

- Infill panel comes down to meet the top of the door frame, offering a continuous thermal line and preventing cold bridging.

- Vapour barrier is continuoud around the facade to meet the suspended ceiling where it is finished.

300mm

300mm

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 3 3.2 ITERATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

WALL TO GROUND DETAILS Wall to Ground Iteration 1 - Section

Wall to Ground Iteration 4 - Section

Wall to Ground Iteration 3 - Section

WALL TO GROUND DETAILS Summary of Process

- Ground connections are different depending on facade treatment.

On the North facade there is a relatively simple connection between the bottom of the ground floor glazing window frame and the concrete substructure.

- On the South Facade there is a substantial window sill and supporting framework, which sits upon an upstand.

- Continuous thermal line is acheived by wrapping thermal insulation around the edge of the floor slab.

- Damp proof membrane is wrapped under the slab and brought up to lie below the rigid thermal insulation.

- Aluminium flashing from the window sill creates the beginning of the drainage system.

- A ground drain sits along the slab and by using a perforated tube it releives pressure from the gorund. Water is then taken to a larger, more traditional drain.

- There is more than 150mm difference between the floor finish level and the estimated street level.

300mm

Wall to Ground Iteration 2 - Section

300mm

ROOF TO WALL DETAILS Summary of Process

300mm

300mm

ROOF TO WALL DETAILS Roof to Wall Iteration 1 - Section

- Roof terrace means special consideration needs to be given to the drainage and balustrade details.

- The concept for this roof detail is to provide a continuous treatment around the balustrade, that gives a subtle and elegant finish from street level.

- The columns have been extended to meet a beam, 900mm above the floor level.

- Insulated infill panels and rigid thermal insulaiton wrap around the balustrade an meet insulation above the metal deck slab, to create a continuous thermal line.

- Paving slabs sit on a bitumous layer and rigid insulation.

- Drainage channels flow between every paving slab, leading to drains on each corner of the building.

- Both damp proof membrane and vapour barriers are required for this roof slab.

- Curtain wall glazing meets this roof detail at a transom in line with the top floor suspended ceiling.

Roof to Wall Iteration 2 - Section

300mm

Roof to Wall Iteration 4 - Section

300mm

Roof to Wall Iteration 3 - Section

300mm

300mm

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 3 3.2 ITERATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT INSULATED INFILL PANEL DETAILS

INSULATED INFILL PANEL DETAILS

Summary of Process

Infill Panel to Wall - Plan

Infill Panel to Floor Iteration 2 - Section

Infill Panel to Floor Iteration 1 - Section

Infill Panel to Floor - Isometric

- As a result of daylighting studies and compromise between lighting performance and energy performance, infill panels were specified.

These infill panels have better thermal performance than triple glazing.

- The insulated infill panels clip into the curtain walling system in the same manner as glazing panels. They are slightly thicker and cover the depth of the secondary structure for a clean finish.

- There is no need for damp proof membranes in these components as they are sealed singular componenets.

- There are possibilities for the panels to be used as main elements or for spandrel panels.

- The specification I will use for these panels will be Kinspan insulated architectural wall panel.

300mm

ATRIUM BALCONY DETAILS

ATRIUM BALCONY DETAILS

Summary of Process

Atrium Balcony Iteration 1 - Section

300mm

Atrium Balcony Iteration 2 - Section

Atrium Balcony Iteration 1 - Plan

- On the South side of the building the atrium creates a balcony on each floor. This is the summary of the detailing process of this area.

- The balustrade is set in line with the edge of the structural column line.

- Glass for the balustrade sits in a channel which is set into the concrete of the composite metal deck.

- An aliminium flange is created to allow the tray to be bolted into the structure.

- at 1300mm centres along the balcony there are aluminium supports that prop the glass upright.

- The glass is connected to this via an aluminium ledge.

- A metal finish panel is bolted to the end of the floor slab, running the height and length of the floor to floor space.

- An isomtric sketch shows how this is integrated.

- As this is inside the building and has no contact with the facade, there is no need for insulation or damp proof membranes.

- Concrete of the composite metal deck is thicker than usually specified, to give the slab potential use of its thermal mass. This mass is exposed to the sun to maximise solar gain.

Summary of References

Throughout this process of detailing the building there have been several key references that informed detail moves. These include, but are not limited to: - www.kingspan.com/gb - Detail Magazine - Modern Construction Envelopes, Andrew Watts - Mitchellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Structure and Fabric, Foster, Harrington, Greeno - Constructing Architecture, Deplazes

Atrium Balcony Iteration 2 - Isometric

Atrium Balcony Iteration 2 - Plan

300mm

CONSTRUCTION REFERENCES

300mm

MISC. SKETCHES

300mm

300mm

TECHNOLOGIES 3: PART C WEEK 3 3.3 INTEGRATIVE DESIGN SUMMARY

NORTH WEST FACADE Location in Overall Building

SOUTH EAST FACADE Reversed Isometric View

Elevation

Location in Overall Building

Reversed Isometric View

Elevation

CONCLUSIONS In summary, this process has taught me further about the design process in a more professional manner. My technical knowledge has broadened through close analysis of a steel structure and curtain walling system, as well as other systems and skins during group comparisons. There are elements in this desing which I am very happy with, and others which I believe could be improved, or the process may have been different in hindsight.

Project Overview: This project has been designed with a general consideration for all aspect of the buildings current and future use. The users have been considered at every stage. Some of the unique characteristics of this building include, a south facing atrium to benefit from passive systems while reducing the environmental impact of the building, and aesthetic and spatial qualities that help to generate a natural and enjoyable working environment. This page shows a summary of the design, from a broad scale down to key details.

Successes: This project has been successful in appraising site and climate to design a suitable building for the brief. The use of structural systems in a way that leads to creative, exciting design has been achieved, and I now feel more comfortable using technology to create architectural experiences. This is something that shall be carried forwards in studio. Other successes include: - Responsiveness to climate - Use of structural grids to inform layout - Environemtal analysis to inform design - Design in all planes to understand the project and systems - Trade-offs made to find a better overall design Improvements: In hindsight, there are several parts of my own design process I would change if this project was to be carried out again, and design decisions that I would change. These include: - Internal finishes - Lack of raised flooring, leading to difficult servicing - Potentially inneffective systems for this climate, e.g. Solar PV - Slight general arrangement alterations, e.g. Kitchen distance to plant room.

Transferable Skills: Working on this project has taught or improved many skills which wil be used throughout my architectural education. These will be used to the benefit of studio projects this year and beyond. For example: - Structural grids to inform general arrangement - Environmental analysis to better the design - Ability to reflect on a design and critique - Deeper understanding of steel structures and curtain wall glazing - Detailing generic floor and roof slabs

KEY ROOF DETAIL

Curtain Wall Glazing = Maximum daylighting

Roof terrace = Architectural experience

Collaborative desks = Better productivity

Sky Lights = Light deep in floor plans

Exposed steel work = Aesthetic benefits

Tables near windows = better environment

Exposed concrete = passively heat the space

South facing elevation = Maximise daylight

Suspended ceiling = Ease of servicing

Southern atrium = Stack effect

Louvres = Solar shading + reduced glare

Stack effect = Effectively cooled environments

Spandrel panels = Better thermal performance

Ground Floor cafe = Reduced enivronmental impact

Exposed steel work = Aesthetic benefits

Piled Foundations = Stability and suitability

KEY GROUND DETAIL

KEY WALL DETAIL

KEY INTERNAL DETAIL